Friday, 29 October 2010

Just Say Non: Nazism, Narcissism and Boyd Rice

"Boyd's rather unimaginative sadism used to embarrass me, but then he explained it using words like 'Weltanshauung'"
Lisa Crystal-Carver, Drugs are Nice [LC, p215]

I last saw Boyd Rice play (as 'Non') back in August 1981, alongside Throbbing Gristle (TG), Z'ev, Cabaret Voltaire and Clock DVA as part of the 'Industrial Night Out' at the Lyceum, London, which brought together the big cheeses of Industrial Music in what was to be something of a coming out party for the scene but turned out also to be its swansong (it was TG's last UK concert; they broke up a few months later). At the time Rice presented himself as a Dadaist and prankster though his aesthetic was actually closer to the sub-Futurist 'instant karma for kids' noise-racket that Merzbow has since successfully appropriated and turned into a brand / 'racket' of his own. While TG boasted of making music from ugly noise, Rice tried to outflank them by serving up the ugliness directly, unfiltered by any obvious concern for form. In fairness Boyd Rice could be said to be among the key players of early Industrial Music, and as a result he perhaps has a shade more kudos than some of the complete musical non-entities we're generally concerned with around here (Wakeford, Pearce, Moynihan, et al). Rice has declared his Fascism in a number of statements, in his art, and through public actions such as appearing in full Fascist regalia and holding a dagger in a photograph alongside Bob Heick, taken in 1989 to promote the latter's organisation, the neo-Nazi skinhead party, American Front. He has also appeared on White Aryan Resistance founder Tom Metzger's cable TV show Race and Reason, where he declared that his friends in Current 93 and Death in June were promoting a 'racialist' agenda and emphasised the importance of Industrial and Neo-Folk music for building the 'Aryan youth movement'.

Since the 80s Rice has continued to release records as well as dabbling ineptly in other media (photography, painting) and playing a leading role in the Church of Satan (he has recently been installed as its leader and 'High Priest') as well as getting involved with Grail mythology, Tiki culture, alcoholism and various other similarly moronic pastimes. Along the way he's written essays and articles outlining his evolving concerns and hobbies for a string of publications, which are collected here along with some previously unpublished writings in the book Standing in Two Circles: The Collected Works of Boyd Rice, edited by Michael Clark and published in 2008 by Creation Books. This collection offers an opportunity to pin down the peculiarly slippery Rice; 'slippery' because his defenders claim that he sets out essentially to 'provoke', which lends him a degree of insulation from the charges of Fascism that would be trivially obvious in any other context. The way this works is that Rice can openly declaim and publish Fascist and racist ideas, and yet confused fans and commentators - who have bought into the mistaken idea that provocation in and of itself is the ne plus ultra of artistic radicalism - still refuse to accept that by buying his records and attending his gigs they are financing a Fascist propagandist since, after all, he is 'merely' trying to provoke. Perhaps these people are by now so utterly stupefied that they're just grateful to anyone who can still manage to wring a response out of them - even if it's by promoting ideas that threaten themselves and everyone they know. This was brought home to me earlier this year when a photographer friend attended Rice's gig in New York to record it for a local paper. Despite the fact that this person has a background as an anti-Fascist, having watched an entire evening of Rice dressed in Fascist military gear, surrounded on stage by Sieg Heil'ing Nazi goons while projecting images of the Swastika and Wolfsangel (the SS symbol Rice used for years as his logo) and reading selections from racist, Social Darwinist tracts, and with the support groups being open White Suprematists, the best he could come up with at the end was that Boyd might perhaps be "a little dodgy". I mean, what does a Fascist have to do these days to get the recognition they deserve?

One reason that Rice's ideology is difficult to get to grips with is that he is patently stupid, meaning that people are loath to take him seriously in case it reflects poorly on their sense of humour or proportion. But that is to miss the fact that condescending to Rice's idiocy by not taking him seriously also makes it easier for him to sell his ideas. While Fascist ideology is by its very nature irrational and essentially incoherent - it doesn't seek to understand the social world in order to place it under collective human control but rather to justify post hoc the Fascist's pre-existing drive to annihilate large parts of society in the name of racial and spiritual 'purity' - this is made worse in Rice's case due to his inability to grapple in even the slightest way with history, politics or anything else requiring a modicum of intellectual focus. His arguments are confused and contradictory, and on top of this he shares the Fascist-occult regard for portents and symbols, for 'mysterious forces', innate biological imperatives, occult machinations and Chthonic powers as the determinants of history, which means that his thought necessarily has the chaotic, cobbled-together quality of childhood obsessions and superstitions.

Despite the fact that there is very little logic or sense in his thought there is nevertheless another kind of coherence at work to the extent that his obsessions cohere with those of his comrades, overlapping neatly with those of the other players in the Fascist-occult 'Apoliteic' counter-culture. Their ideas may well be an incoherent mess when considered purely as ideas, but they share them in common in practical terms as they thrust their hands into the lucky-dip bowl of Fascist esoteric idiocy to pluck out those notions they like they sound of and dole them out among their peers. So it's no surprise that in these essays Rice touches on many of the core themes that tie him to the likes of Michael Moynihan, Doug Pearce and other musicians he has collaborated with over the years (both Moynihan and Pearce provide blurb texts promoting the book; Pearce even providing a rare dash of humour when he salutes Rice as an "inspirational genius"). These people may be in different stages of denial or employing different degrees of deception when it comes to admitting their Fascist allegiances, but they all draw from the same pool of half-baked atavistic notions and gladly share what they find, disagreeing only in points of detail (and then largely only on the basis of minor variations in taste or as a matter of mutual brand positioning). Among Fascist ideologues ideas are essentially fuel for the creation of a mobilising myth, so coherence doesn't matter that much. But while it is impossible to take Boyd Rice seriously as a man or a thinker it would be irresponsible not to register the threat his ideas represent.

Balding alcoholic Boyd Rice
(Photo by Brian Clark)
A good place to start into this mess of a book is Michael Clark's 'Introduction', which runs through a few of the set-piece arguments the Fascists and their supporters use in their defence. First up is Clark's defence of Rice's use of Fascist motifs;
"To conform to the edicts of contemporary Western social mores one must totally accept or reject controversial taboo subjects... In considering the issue of Nazism, for example, there can be no grey area, no possibility whatsoever that certain facets of such a subject might hold a kernel of merit or glimmer or redemptive worth... The use of Fascistic or Nazi aesthetics and symbolism is resolutely - aggressively - forbidden in all but the most comedic of contexts, while... the Hammer and the Sickle and The Red Star are so ubiquitous as to verge on countercultural corporate branding... Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini are unilaterally and universally anathematised, while their despotic Communist counterparts Joseph Stalin and Mao Tse Tung and regularly given a pass - despite the fact that the latter wrested exponentially more human life from the planet than did the former." [38]
The first thing to note about this is that it skirts the fact that Rice not only uses Fascist 'aesthetics and symbolism' but promotes Fascism itself (in the very book Clark is introducing, for example): Clark presumably hopes that the reader is as stupid as his author and won't notice his equivocation. More importantly, this line of argument exemplifies one of the defining characteristics of the book as a whole since it remains trapped entirely within the framework of a bourgeois thought. To put it bluntly, Rice and his friends repeatedly accept a liberal perception of the world and then simply reverse its particular judgements (Fascism is taboo <-> Fascism is grand). This does not allow the individual to escape bourgeois thought in the way that is promised to the consumer, but rather keeps them entirely within its clutches, albeit perhaps looking a little racier now they sport Totenkopf patches and worship Satan.

Stalinism did indeed pile up the bodies of its victims, slaughtering millions on the road to conquering and then consolidating its social power. But Stalinism and Fascism do not represent political antitheses in the way that both Clark and Fascist thought like to pretend. They are simply different forms of rule peculiar to different stages and conditions of capitalism. Both Stalinism and Fascism murdered Jews, homosexuals, national minorities,'revisionists' and backsliders, trade unionists and socialists. The difference is that Stalinism in both Russia and China did so as part of a process of primitive (state-) capitalist accumulation similar to that by which Britain, for example, achieved much the same ends at a corresponding stage of development through, eg., the slave trade and Highland Clearances (though Stalinism appears bloodier because it compressed the same phase of development into a far shorter period of time). This does not justify Stalinist violence in any way, but it begins to explain it. Fascism serves a different end and achieves it differently. It is essentially a form of emergency rule at a time of extraordinary capitalist crisis in which the working class is terrorised into submission by unleashing waves of destructive violence against any and all perceived enemies of the state, internal and external. Fascism has its ideological dimensions, of course, but in practice they are ultimately subordinate to its self-appointed task of integrating and stabilising capitalist society at times of danger to the state by liquidating it's enemies, both real (the class conscious working class) and imagined (any and all impure and degenerate elements as defined by whatever myth or prejudice inspires the particular strand of Fascism under consideration and mobilises the masses behind it). This is done in order to create an 'organic' / integral society where all the parts are subordinated to the social totality, existing only to serve it.

All of this is opaque to Clark, who talks instead like a consumer in the shopping mall of history, choosing between competing brands of totalitarianism on the basis of which is less fattening for his notional conscience. He wants to pile up the bodies and count them rather than understand the ideas that coordinated their destruction. Instead of considering the politics of Rice's Fascism he likes to present Rice simply as someone 'brave' enough to challenge the 'taboo' against Fascism, as if he might shake bourgeois society to its core merely by invoking the negative theology it shrouds itself in. But this taboo is, after all, only the socially constructed fetish of a particular epoch and doesn't mean that crisis-ridden capitalism won't reach toward Fascism again in future (there are faint indications of this already in Europe). And this turn will be made easier to the extent that ideologues and propagandists, even feeble ones like Boyd Rice, have helped clear the route back to Fascism by normalising it's anti-democratic, mythic values.

A similar logic is apparent in Clark's defence of Satanism;
"The Church of Satan is often dismissed outright as illegitimate by practitioners of more established belief systems... it's difficult to deny that conventional organised religion has been responsible for scores of large scale wars, genocides, inquisitions, witch hunts, crusades and other varieties of human strife over the centuries, but one would be hard pressed to find so much as a single example of a major conflict undertaken in the name of Satan." [39]
Once again, the ignorance of basic historical processes (if it isn't entirely feigned) is astonishing. Does he really imagine that the Crusades were simply an expression of Christian values, as opposed to social and political struggles for which the language of religion served merely as a smokescreen and ideology? Clark takes religious ideology at its own word and assigns to it a primordial power over events, as if religion created man rather than the other way about. Worse than this, in treating Satanism as merely an abstract negation of Christianity he ignores the positive content that modern Satanism has developed, which is rooted in racist and proto-Fascist ideas. Modern Satanism begins with the work of Howard Stanton Levey (aka Anton LaVey) and his Church of Satan. As is well known, the key text of his church, The Satanic Bible, which has influenced all of the main Satanist cults since, plagiarises the 19th Century Social Darwinist tract Might is Right, by Arthur Desmond (aka Ragnar Redbeard), a work brimming with violent anti-Semitism and racism. Partly as a result of LaVey's promotion of it, Desmond's book has become a favourite of modern racists, right-wing Libertarians and Fascists, and was even republished by 14 Words Press, the company founded by David Lane, the notorious Klan member who also helped lead the armed Fascist group, The Order, and who died in prison after being convicted of conspiring in the murder of Denver Radio talk show host (and Jewish anti-Fascist) Alan Berg. Entire sections of Might is Right are simply transferred wholesale into Levey's Bible. If Satanism has not yet proved as practically malevolent as Christianity in Clark's estimation it is certainly not for the want of effort on the part of those who have taken the core of Levey's teaching to its logical conclusion, such as Lane and, eg., the members of The Order of Nine Angles and other Nazi-Satanic cults.

As a collection of occasional pieces it's hard to get to grips with Rice's book as a whole. Large parts of it document his obsession with all kinds of ephemera: over the course of the book he discusses things such as novelty soaps, The Lawrence Whelk Retirement Home and Museum, bumper stickers and campaign ribbons, Disneyland, Tiny Tim, 'Leave it to Beaver', Martin Denny and Tiki bars, Mondo films, bubblegum pop and similar avowedly lightweight culture. I've heard it argued that Rice's love of trivia shows that he can't really be a Fascist since he clearly doesn't take anything that seriously (whereas Fascists are presumably permanently dour, focussed solely on their destiny and the tasks of history). But that is to seriously overestimate the Fascist mind which, in reality, feels quite at home with the banal, the kitsch and the maudlin. Rice's debunking attitude is represented as a levelling, critical iconoclasm, but in fact it expresses a much more systematic and thoroughgoing narcissism and cynicism which ultimately sees everything (other than his own übermensch ego) as essentially worthless. This conception perhaps represents the point at which Fascist narcissism blends into post-modern affectlessness. For the Fascist the social world (as opposed to nature) really is a meaningless pit. In Boyd Rice's mind a bar of novelty soap might well be the perfect symbol of the supposed vacuity of existence. The twist in his case is only that he revels in this vacuousness; "it is my view that the best way to inoculate oneself against the prevailing dystopia is to simply decide to love it" [144]. Boyd celebrates the trivial because, as Terry Eagleton put it, "Nihilists and buffoons are allergic to the slightest hint of significance" [TE, 87].

In 'Burning the Ice' (1989) Rice recalls "one of the pivotal episodes of my youth", in which he watches through a picture window as an anonymous man within irons his shirt then makes himself a sandwich and packs his lunch before setting off in his car for work. "I was horrified", says Rice [56]. This experience leads him into a life of desperate opposition to conventional morality, which expresses itself through his stealing money from purses he finds in the cloakroom at parties and breaking into his neighbour's flats through open windows in order to have a sniff around. Terrifying stuff. In 'Sin in the Suburbs' (1994) Rice details his early sexual experiences, including an unintentionally hilarious story about how he was told as a youngster that every time he masturbated he was destroying the millions of potential souls contained in his sperm. This naturally led him to embark on a prolonged course of intense wanking. The image of the red-faced Rice furiously pulling on his cock while fantasising impotently about annihilating non-existent Christian souls seems somehow a fitting tribute to the man and his career.

Things start to take a more genuinely sinister turn when, as the next stage in the planned development of his psychopathy, he decides to stalk a waitress from a local restaurant. He follows her around to learn about her daily movements and then engineers a 'chance' meeting with her on her way home from work. This leads to a date after which, back at the woman's flat, he talks her into letting him tie her up for some S&M fun. Once she is bound he goes into the kitchen to fetch a carving knife then convinces the woman that he is going to cut her open. He then suddenly departs, leaving his victim terrified. Such violent misogyny would become a staple of Rice's life. In 1994's 'Revolt Against Penis Envy' (notice the acronym) he works himself up into a fever of hatred and contempt for women;
"At one time all was right with the world. It was lorded over by men who imposed their will by force. Women kept their mouths shut, underlings knew their place... In a once glorious past, woman was a creature without rights; a second class citizen... She was part cook, part whore, part servant and all child... Woman must be put in her place... These days the only way to restore balance between the sexes is by fear and pain... Rape is the act by which fear and pain are united in love... Now is the time to subjugate. Now is the time to dominate. Now is the time to rape. Let the RAPE commence. Go forth! Rise up! Rape, rape, rape!" [81-83]
Clearly this was written as a provocation and, according to the reasoning usually applied to Rice, can't be taken entirely seriously. But why not? If the ideas conform to his practice we can assume that for all that these opinions are expressed so as to 'provoke', they nevertheless also represent his thinking. In her book, Drugs are Nice, Lisa Crystal Carver (aka Lisa Suckdog) details the long-term mental and physical abuse she suffered as Rice's partner and the mother of their child, leading to a brutal attack which saw her badly injured and Rice imprisoned ("Boyd strangled me and threw me against walls and bashed my head against the futon frame, [finally he] released his hands from my neck and stood up, dazed, like a big, stupid oaf and smacked his lips with the satisfaction of having given in to impulse" [LC, 309]).

Other parts of Rice's book concern individuals who have become icons for the Fascist counter-culture; Anton LaVey, Savitri Devi and Charles Manson. In 'I'll Call You Abraxas' (1994) Rice details his various meetings and interviews with Manson. Indeed, Manson gave this book it's title, having said to Rice, "I'll call you Abraxas, because you stand in two circles at once" [100] (Abraxas being a Gnostic deity which Rice believes, after Jung, is "the ultimate archetype", being beyond all dualities - and therefore 'beyond good and evil'). Rice claims to have been a fan of Manson since his teenage years. He also claims that it was him who took Throbbing Gristle out to Manson's old base at Spahn Ranch to have the photographs taken which appeared in Re:Search's early feature on TG, and which cemented the association between them and Manson. Naturally, Manson is a hero to Rice, and a font of tremendous wisdom;
"... he seemed to be an expert in many things... He knew about ancient history and current history, and the forces that shaped both. He seemed to posses a comprehensive overview of the history of the whole world; not just the events as they are presented, but all the unseen factors that preceded and resulted from those events." [97]
Even Rice cannot fail to notice that Manson is a fantasist (at one point he tells Rice that his supporters have hijacked a fleet of nuclear submarines and are holding the leaders of the world to ransom while negotiating his release). He also notices the disparity between Manson's supposed omniscience and the fact that, apart from anything else, he is by normal standards a hopeless loser. But that only leads Rice to conclude that Manson is "a far more complex and multi-faceted character than even I'd imagined" [100]. What binds Rice and Manson together is a titanic narcissism which leads them to take for granted their own effortless superiority to the general run of worthless mankind (an impression which strikes me as incredible, given the poverty of the human material in question). Rice certainly approves of Manson's violent misanthropy, which mirrors the attitude expressed in LaVey's Satanic Bible and Redbeard's Might is Right. At one point Rice encourages Manson to attempt to get people to understand his point of view, to which Manson responds;
"People? Understand? People don't understand a fucking thing. They have lower awareness than turds. If this table were the world, and it was covered with turds representing humans, and you exercised complete control over them... You could move the turds from here to there... and it wouldn't make a bit of difference. Not one bit. They have no souls. No intelligence. You could flush three fourths of them down the toilet and the planet would never miss them." [99]
"When the person finally comes along to restore the balance in this world... There will be more blood, more death, more destruction and more suffering than there has been in the history of life on Earth. And I don't say that just because it's what all the worthless fuckers out there deserve... but because that is what will be necessary." [99]
A love of Manson's systematic misanthropy ties Rice squarely to James Mason and The Universal Order, a Nazi group dedicated to promoting Manson as a Fascist icon. Mason's book, Siege, celebrates Manson's vicious alienation and was published by Rice's friend and collaborator Michael Moynihan (and discussed in a earlier post). In the early nineties Rice appeared alongside Mason and Moynihan on radio evangelist Bob Larson's show, during which Moynihan and Rice not only defended Manson but even taunted the mother of Sharon Tate (one of the victims of the Manson Family's killing spree), who had called in to protest. Mason famously has even defended the murder of Tate's unborn baby, saying that "it was, after all, a Jew" [JM, 328].

Rice also has essays here on Anton LaVey and Savitri Devi. Both are important figures in the Fascist-occult underground; LaVey as the fantasist who founded The Church of Satan, and Devi as an obscurantist who tried to combine Fascism with ideas drawn from Vedic culture, arguing that Hinduism is the nearest thing we have today to the Pagan religion of the original Aryans. In her book The Lightning and the Sun she argues that Hitler is 'Kalik', an incarnation of Vishnu destined, according to the Vedas, to end the current cycle of world history and initiate a new age (she was clearly wrong about that, but that doesn't bother her followers). Devi was also an active Fascist, imprisoned by Allied Forces in 1949 for spreading Nazi propaganda in post-War Germany. Her work has been praised by such conspicuously un-diverse figures as repeat-offending aspirant British Führer Colin Jordan, James Mason, and 'Squeaky' Fromme from the Manson Family. As it happens Rice has little of interest to say about either LaVey or Devi, except inasmuch as he gives away aspects of his own mindset. Apart from celebrating LaVey's misanthropy ("He would often speak at great length (and in great detail) of unspeakable acts of cruelty and violence" [133]) he is also impressed because LaVey normally "only deals with millionaires and movie stars" [ 131]. In Devi's case he notes that "she tested as having genius level IQ" [152]. Reified wealth, celebrity and intelligence are all equally attractive to Rice's banal mind.

A number of essays in the book deal with the weighty matter of Rice's 'philosophy' and world-view. In them he touches on ideas that are common currency among his Fascist peers. Rice's 'big' idea, which he returns to over and again, consists of a reactionary-romantic elevation of nature over culture. It is not so much that his view is reductive (in which case culture would be a mere epiphenomenon of nature); he sees everything that is specifically human as an unnatural and arbitrary excrescence on top of nature. His train of thought starts with an idea he quotes from the German naturalist and artist (and Social Darwinist racist) Ernst Haeckel; "Man is not above nature, but in nature" [89]. As far as it goes, this is true. The problem is that Rice's rigidly mechanical mind cannot grasp the thought dialectically, so he draws the mistaken conclusion that "man is synonymous with nature" [65]. But this is a very different argument, and it leads to the conclusion that that part of man which is not strictly natural is abstract to the point of unreality. This is clearly a self-cancelling and redundant philosophy: to see this you need only ask yourself why somebody who believes that nature is everything, and ideas are airless distractions, would bother publishing a book at all. The point is that man, while wholly part of nature, is at the same time distinguished from it by culture, and that this culture is every bit as real and effective as nature.

To see what this implies, consider the next stage of Rice's argument, which involves pointing out that nature has no sense of right and wrong, good or bad; "Nature, unlike man, is utterly indifferent to subjective judgements such as 'good' and 'bad'" [142]. The obvious response is to point out that the converse is equally true - that man, unlike nature, simply is not indifferent to subjective judgements. If that were not true then Rice would have nothing to rant about, and his attempts to persuade you of anything at all would be pointless. In fact, the distinction between nature and culture which Rice's entire 'philosophy' turns on is itself cultural and unnatural (but nonetheless real). It is culture that generates the dialectical distinction between ourselves and the nature that is the 'other' we transform in production: Rice's mistake is to reify this distinction and make it absolute, rather than relative.

Rice claims that "Nature adheres to an immutable order" [63], but in fact nature is very much mutable and has a substantial history of its own. One thing we know with absolute certainty is that nature at some point gave rise to culture. This mechanical idea of an unchanging nature is also at the root of traditional religious metaphysics. If nature was immutable then you might ask; where did humans and their culture - where did 'spirit' - suddenly arise from? The traditional answer is that God breathed spirit into matter as part of his creation, and yet this spirit is still separate from matter and exists in its own right, being 'unnatural'. In this way the crude materialism Rice advocates inevitably gives rise to religiosity and occultism ('spiritualism'), as it does with Rice himself: his book is littered with tales of ghosts (autonomous 'spirits'), uncanny happenings, mysterious portents and other such occult banalities: stupid materialism (mechanical and biological determinism) and stupid spirituality (occultism) are conjoined twins.

While Rice's explanation of his ontology and 'spirituality' are a nothing more than jumble of 19th Century solecisms, they nevertheless form the basis for the further development of his boneheaded narcissistic resentment. Having separated nature and culture his next trick is to argue that nature itself knows nothing of equality or human rights;
"In truth, the concept of natural equality is not natural at all - and in fact contradicts every dictate of nature." [63]

"Nature adheres to an immutable order; humanity to an ever increasing chaos. Nature recognises no equality at any level of its order; humanity preaches an all-pervasive equality and freely hands out unearned 'rights'... In short: humanity is Democratic, nature is Fascist." [63]
This naturally allows him to launch into a series of bitter tirades against 'inferiors' of every kind, who he believes have no rights and should expect no mercy, since talk of 'rights', 'equality' and so on is rooted in the unreality of culture and out of step with natural law. In an act of extraordinary special pleading he argues that the intellect is nothing to be proud of anyway, and not to be taken seriously because it is out of kilter with 'reality'. Instead he argues that man should rely on instinct alone;
"Man follows his intellect, employing logic and reason, and yet in so doing he betrays his most primal, basic desires." [88]

"Man's instincts will always and forever reflect the will of the natural order. Conversely, man's intellect has become divorced from the hard realities of life on earth, having instead become lost in a nebulous realm of ideas, theories, beliefs and opinions, which largely have no basis in tangible fact. Unless man's intellect comes to reflect his instinctual, soul-oriented values it will always place him at odds with himself." [61]
His trick here is to try to divide the human being schematically in two, one part (ideas and values) corresponding to culture, the other (instincts) corresponding to nature. Once again he makes absolute what is in reality only a relative distinction. Of course some human responses are more deeply wired into the physical, biological and genetic 'nature' of man than others, but certainly the 'instincts' that Boyd is covertly trying to justify (racism, misogyny, etc.) are in fact very much cultural products, as can be seen by anyone who spends any time at all considering their long development and the way that different societies have taken different attitudes towards them.

Morality too has nothing to do with nature in Rice's estimation, and so he's against it and wants you to slough it off. He believes that "a true understanding of natural law would render conventional morality obsolete." [87]. What Rice advocates is an eternal feeding frenzy in which the strong annihilate the weak in a totally amoral struggle for domination, for "higher men disdain the lives of the weak and cowardly - slave types" [61]. You might call this 'unprogrammatic Fascism', as he doesn't believe that things could ever be otherwise and criticises his Nazi heroes because they "still harboured the naively romantic dream that they could somehow turn the tide around" [141]. So that is Rice's philosophy in a nutshell: Fascism without its noble ideals (like the old joke about Hitler returning to Earth and declaring "this time - no more Mr. Nice Guy").

The only remaining thing to say about Rice's cod-philosophy is how neatly it mirrors that of his hard-core Nazi friend James Mason. Both fetishise extreme alienation and violent misanthropy: Mason's Universal Order has adopted Manson as the ideal Nazi icon because of a combination of this and the fact that he has counter-cultural clout. Both believe that that the process of social 'degeneration'  (from a fascist point of view: multiculturalism, democracy, etc.) is so advanced that they will support any and all violence against it. Both prioritise 'instinct' (their prejudice) over reason. And both, in different ways, are finding an audience.

This utterly stupid and offensive book should be warning enough that Boyd Rice is not a prankster and certainly not someone who should be lauded for 'pushing the envelope', but rather a Nazi who uses the cover provided by slack-jawed concepts of what constitutes radical art in order to promote - and create a focus for - the violence and hatred of a small but growing section of the Fascist movement internationally. As such he should be opposed in every possible way in order to stop his operation in its tracks, precisely as we would with any other Fascist shithead.

Unless noted otherwise, references are to Boyd Rice, Brian M Clark (ed), 2008, Standing in Two Circles: The Collected Works of Boyd Rice, Creation Books, London.

LC: Lisa Crystal Carver, 2005, Drugs are Nice, Snowbooks, London.
TE: Terry Eagleton, On Evil, Yale University Press, New Haven, CT.
JM: James Mason, 2010, Siege: The Collected Writings of James Mason, edited by Michael M. Jenkins (Michael Moynihan), introduction by Ryan Schuster, Black Sun Publications, Bozeman, MT.

99 comments:

  1. Thanks for taking the time to deal intelligently with this complete moron. I know in the past some of his London gigs have been cancelled because people who had looked deep enough into the matter took the actions necessary to get them called off. Now you've spelt it out for everyone let's hope his concerts and personal appearances are cancelled around the world. Culture has no need for a dodgy noise act from a wife-beat misanthropist idiot.

    ReplyDelete
  2. You present a good argumant against Boyd Rice and his ideologies. I am no supporter of fascism, quite the opposite in fact (I consider myself an Absurdist/Nihilist). However, although as we can see Rice's ideological reasonings(ooh i love the use of a good oxymoron), they are full of contradictary holes(indeed anyone with just the most casual interest in political science/philosophy and evolutionary psychology can see that what rice and fascist ideologies present does not hold up to logical scrutiny). However, the argumants you present refuting Rice's ideologies also have some holes, I'm not going to go into them all here. But generally a good post, nice one!
    Also, i have to admit, NON does make jolly good music.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Excellent post! Fucking hell, "Might is Right"...read that years ago (or 3/4 of it), reeked of furious, bitter old men raging in their potting sheds - like most of that 'Apocalypse Culture' / 'serial killers are cool cos they act as we'd secretly like to' shite. The more I read about Rice, the more I'm glad I never checked out his albums (I think I heard one Non track and it was crap) and, as you pointed out in a previous post about the neo-folkies, the fact that he's spent all this time pushing the same banal, juvenile obsessions puts the lie to the fact that he's "exploring" dodgy material to reach some profound conclusion about humanity (or whatever the official line of ambiguity is these days).

    ReplyDelete
  4. I really hope this helps along the far-leftists vs Satanists beef that has been brewing.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Good grief that's a long article with lots of clever words. I think I get it though. You don't like Boyd Rice so no one else should. I'll bear it in mind next time I get the urge to listen to NON or something related.

    ReplyDelete
  6. No, you definitely don't get it

    ReplyDelete
  7. I'll take your word for it Strel. Aren't we lucky to have you righteous lefties pointing us of lesser understanding in the right direction.

    ReplyDelete
  8. ... or 'arguing for your politics', as it used to be known before the world was taken over by neurasthenic types too feeble to defend their opinions. Look, if you like Rice's music that's your problem (I've owned a few myself over the years), but you might as well know who you are giving your money to. Or are you saying that you don't need 'righteous lefties' to tell you about Boyd Rice because you already know about him but just don't care? If so, spit it out.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I don't give a flying fuck what he thinks or believes in. It then stands to reason that what other people believe about him matters even less. It is funny though. Thanks for making it controverial listening to Boyd again. It's been a while.

    ReplyDelete
  10. You care enough to come on here and shout the odds about it, though?

    Boyd Rice fans crack me up. They're all for controversy and confrontation until someone actually confronts them. Then they get all pissy and want to be left alone to toss themselves unconscious over their "transgressive" record collections.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Ah, I see, you "don't give a fuck". Got it. I'm guessing that you're now so highly evolved that you are above the concerns of us mortals. Watch out though - your post-modern, unengaged pose may soon become unfashionable all over again, and then what will you do? Apologies for my distinct lack of a sense of humour: I blame people like you for that.

    ReplyDelete
  12. You are right abc, I care enough to make a few quick and easy comments on an article about a has been who's done very little of any worth in the last ten years. Unlike the writer of the above text who must have spent considerable time regurgitating the same old boring and highly subjective shit said about Rice over the last 30 years.

    I haven't listened to Boyd Rice/NON in a long time actually. I guess it's just not fashionable enough for me. Joking aside though, I see Lisa Suckdog's kiss and tell book on Rice (and others) is used for reference. The ex prostitute who used to, among other things, suck Costes cock on stage back in the good old days. That's a pretty bold move. She isn't unhinged at all, is she? Her vitriolic attacks on ex hubby Rice may suit your agenda but are you sure she's telling the truth?

    Blame me all you like for your lack of humour. My theory is you never had one. It very often goes hand in hand with being a lefty and that's why most of you are pious and boring to the point where precious few will ever care about what you say. But by all means, keep fighting windmills like Rice. It keeps fringe lunatics like you from interfering with and subesequently confusing matters of real importance.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. OLO, it's the neo-fascist moral brigade again, defeidning its sensitive balls from any possible denounce or mention any EX of any of these scumbags brings to light regarding their abuses and maladaptive behaviour. obv, it's a stain in the party suit to let out BR is a stupid moron who gets off on beating his wife and living in a dump he never cleaned up anyways, so let's pour the old bleach that is, point out "she was a loose woman" who got it on with this or that guy in this or that less appropriate setting (and in neo-fascist patterns, that's how any woman no matter how decent or caught in a punctual fleeting irresponsible episode becomes a "whore" or "slut" - NEVERMIND her exes live covered in real whores! the women are always guilty (cue Tibet whining about his ex, etc).

      I bet these guys' panzerweenies are microscopic anyways - and never get up, lest for despicable stimuli like demeaning every sexual partner they have.

      between any guy in the neo-fascist/neofolk scene and the woman associated with it most branded as "slag", who's the most decent? I place my bet on her virginal soul. oh.

      have a nice one.

      Delete
  13. "This utterly stupid and offensive book should be warning enough that Boyd Rice is not a prankster and certainly not someone who should be lauded for 'pushing the envelope', but rather a Nazi who uses the cover provided by slack-jawed concepts of what constitutes radical art in order to promote - and create a focus for - the violence and hatred of a small but growing section of the Fascist movement internationally. As such he should be opposed in every possible way in order to stop his operation in its tracks, precisely as we would with any other Fascist shithead."

    Further confirmation to your fringe lunacy. Nazis on the brain you lot. Make sure you check under your beds so you can sleep safe at night.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Lisa Suckdog is a liar because she's an ex-prostitute who, God forbid, gave a few blow jobs along the way? How very, er.... "pious and boring" of you to think that.

    I find it odd that you'd expend effort protecting her wife-beating Nazi ex-partner from criticism, while on the other hand trying to criticise and belittle anti-Fascist bloggers and the victim of a violent domestic abuse. Is that what passes for transgression these days?

    ReplyDelete
  15. I find it odd how you accuse him of anything based on what could very well be the account of a woman scorned. You know for sure he's a "wife-beating Nazi" based on what she said?

    ReplyDelete
  16. A comment I read recently regarding something else was: It's entertaining watching a midget trying measure the size of a giant. Although I hesitate calling Rice a giant the fact is he has produced a very respectable body of work which has had an undisputed impact on the face of music. At least before he got lost in his Social Darwinism, poor choise in spouses and alcoholism.

    What have you achieved except for this blog where you cry about bands you don't approve of? Apart from being a righteous crying moralistic internet goon, what's your great legacy?

    Midgets measuring giants?

    ReplyDelete
  17. "he has produced a very respectable body of work which has had an undisputed impact on the face of music"

    No he didn't and no it hasn't. He simply takes a few hippy counter-cultural clichés and palms them off onto gullible idiots who don't know any better.

    ReplyDelete
  18. In the words of the great hippie philosopher Jeffrey Lebowski, that's just like you opinion man. That is what all this boils down to, you don't like certain artists so you devote a blog to telling the world why it's wrong for anyone else to like them. It's all based on your opinion with some lendings from whoever happens to agree with you. Like Lisa Suckdog for instance, whose account of Rice as a "wife-beating Nazi" you have no way of knowing with absolute certainty.

    ReplyDelete
  19. To be fair, apart from 'my opinion' I also offered documentary evidence, written testimony, linked video recordings, photographs and extensive quotations from his published works to support it, all backed up by a corresponding logical, philosophical and aesthetic critique. Apart from that though, you are right: it's just my opinion.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Also isn't Rice being a wife beater entirely consistent with his philosophy? He's certainly never denied it as far as I know, so why work yourself up into such a lather defending him?

    ReplyDelete
  21. Most publishers use libel lawyers to check non-fiction books before they publish them, not sure who issued Suckdog's book in the US but I very much doubt Snowbooks would have put it out in the UK without a lawyer going through this first (since the UK has some of the toughest libel laws in the world and Snowbooks is run by a businesswoman Emma Barnes with a City of London background and while it is independent is pretty big and well funded and is not an alternative press). Snowbooks wouldn't have allowed the wife-beating sections to stand unless Suckdog had proof that would have stood up in an English court (and that means overwhelmingly convincing evidence in a libel case). Therefore we can be confident that what she has to say about Rice being a wife beater is true.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Yea but she also was talking shit in her book about Stanton Lavey being the product of incest and that guy kicked her ass.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Did he indeed. From 40 Myths About Anton LaVey;

    "Anton Szandor Lavey presented himself as a loving family man. Reality was quite different. ASL violently beat his wife Diane throughout their marriage. In 1984 a police report was made describing Diane being strangled into unconsciousness by ASL, who was in such a murderous rage that his daughter Karla had to pull him off Diane and drag her outside the house to save her life. ASL routinely physically beat and abused those of his female disciples with whom he had sex, forcing them into prostitution as part of his "Satanic counseling" and collecting their earnings. Shock preformance artist Lisa Carver was involved with Neo-Nazi Boyd Rice, a man who was Zeena LaVey's lover before her, and believes Zeena was sexually abused by LaVey and thinks Stanton is a product of incest. In 2005, Staton's common law wife known as "Szanora" got in a physical altercation with Carver over the claim. [Drugs Are Nice; A Post Punk Memoir by Lisa Crystal Carver, 2003 ISBN-13: 978-1932360943 ] In 1986 ASL was a passive witness to the sexual molestation of his own grandson by a longtime friend who was later convicted of sex crimes with minors. In 1990 ASL informed a mentally-ill stalker of his daughter Zeena of her whereabouts and the time & location of a public appearance she was scheduled to make, deliberately endangering her life. [ SOURCES: San Francisco Police records of ASL attack on Diane LaVey, Zeena LaVey, Diane LaVey, Stanton LaVey.]"

    ReplyDelete
  24. While this is Lisa Suckdog's account of the attack on her by Szandora and Stanton LaVey;

    "I was getting these warnings that the Satanists would be beating me up or killing me on the west coast due to what I wrote about some of them in the book. So last night before the show they got me when I'd walked out of Mondo Video and was more alone than I had been previously. A red-haired gal said, "Are you Lisa Carver? I'm Szandora and this is Stanton LaVey and" something like we want to know why you'd write something like that and you're a stupid bitch and we're going to kick your ass. So she lunges for me, we pull each others hair out, I kick her in the crotch a couple times, she scratches my neck up. I'm fine with that part. Stanton is her boyfriend and I wrote things about him and she announced her intentions and I could have run back in the store if I'd wanted to avoid it and it was fair because it was one on one. Then Stanton yells at me to get off his girlfriend, who was actually on top of ME, but I think I was hurting her, and so she's holding me down and he's kicking me on the pavement! And then my friend Pat Glamorous yells at him and tries to pull me out from under Szandora and two more Satanists come up and I don't know if they were kicking me because I was in a fetal position at that point clawing and kicking at any flesh I could. Then my friends come up and Stanton yells "You're gonna get it even worse in San Francisco tomorrow!"

    Well it would have to be worse, because that was the wimpiest beating I ever got. A six foot tall guy kicking me while someone else holds me down and I'm not even sore at all today. I wonder if those people have ever been in a fight in their life, as they don't seem to know where or how to hurt someone. If they had hung around just 60 seconds longer, the pavement would have been kicking Stanton instead, because some of those friends do know where and how to hurt someone. But anyway, it was fun. This whole tour we've been trying to illustrate the crazy times in the late 80s underground, and that's back when I was getting in fights, so not only are we doing it onstage, but outside Mondo Video too.

    I hate to do it, but I think I have to press assault charges because Stanton is suing me for libel and Soft Skull to stop printing my books. But I'm in a hurry to get to San Francisco. I got a hunk of Szandora's red hair I picked up off the sidewalk in my pocket. I could do voodoo now. But I don't mind about her. Just about Stanton."


    I have no idea how Stanton's lawsuit went.

    ReplyDelete
  25. If Lisa Suckdog really cared if Zeena was molested and that Stanton was a product of incest, would she have included those comments in her book? It does lend an air of just trying to stir up trouble to sell the book. Which in light of this, how do you think Boyd fares? Not that there isn't likely a root of truth to it, but it seems likely exaggerated.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Wow...
    What's with all the name calling and blatant uintelligent innsult?
    Aren't you able to write a criticism withouth resorting to such childish means?

    Besides, Revolt Against Penis Envy is cleraly satire, and also a parody of the SCUM maifesto.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCUM_Manifesto


    And yes, as someone said in a comment a bit further up here: Boyd Rice HAS produced a very respectable body of work which has had an undisputed impact on the face of music.

    He did noise music in the late 70s, and it has had quite an impact. If you don't see that you're either ignorant or in denial.

    ReplyDelete
  27. I bought all the early Non records. I sold them years ago, not because of Rice's politics (which I didn't know about at the time) but because I started to listen to far better music. And by that I mean far better noise music.

    'Having an impact' is a concept that comes from marketing and sales departments. I don't deny that Non in particular influenced a bunch of people, but I think they were naive people (rather like myself when I was into Non). I think that his music is worthless as music and is wholly derivative of far more interesting musicians, I don't deny that he influenced people to emulate this worthless music in various ways, and therefore, in record industry terms, he was 'influential'.

    I think his idea of 'noise' is banal. I think the same, eg., about Merzbow, as I hinted in the article. His aesthetic (and I'm talking about the early stuff) is a laughably simplistic play on Futurism. Real noise isn't indeterminate in the way most of Non's early stuff is. Maurizio Bianchi and Whitehouse, to name but two, were more interesting musicians, if you like that sort of thing.

    If you have any sense you would graduate from Non's teenage concept of noise to consider, perhaps, music by people like AMM, Peter Brotzman, MEV or a hundred other groups all far more significant than Boyd Rice.

    And yes, I should have mentioned that R.A.P.E is intended as a parody of Solanas's S.C.U.M Manifesto. If you think that such a response is plausible or useful in any way, or is somehow equivalent in its impact or meaning, you are a fool. The point is that Boyd Rice is a violent misogynist (not just in theory but in practice too). If that rocks your boat or gives you some sort of thrill then you deserve contempt.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Regardless of whom Stanton LaVey was conceived by, isn't it a tad insensitive by carver to, fabricated or not, gloat about it in her book? Isn't it at least a little bit understandable that he'd be upset?

    ReplyDelete
  29. Maybe so, but the argument was about whether this stuff (not so much about Stanton, but about Rice) was true. On the other hand, having been battered into unconsciousness by Rice maybe it's understandable in turn that Lisa S would want to dish the dirt not only on him but on his mentor.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Has her claims about Stanton LaVey being a product of incest been proven?

    ReplyDelete
  31. How typical of a page like this...comment approvel barrier!!! Hahaha!

    ReplyDelete
  32. Are you seriously trying to tell us that a man who names himself after a Robert Palmer album can still actually get laid these days?

    ReplyDelete
  33. @Heavy Nova: "You guys need girlfriends."

    That's a bit rich from the man who wrote:
    "...now I am here, before you, my loving audience....MY COMPUTER! Easy to talk to, non judgemental and such a great listener...too bad you don´t give blow jobs!"

    ReplyDelete
  34. Heavy Nova said: "You guys need girlfriends." How typically heterosexist and just what I'd expect from a right-wing half-wit. Why do I need a girlfriend when I already have several boyfriends? And how unsurprising that those who defend the likes of Boyd Rice and the other fascist buffoons featured on this site should consistently do so from completely reactionary perspectives.

    ReplyDelete
  35. lol@HeavyNova's blog:

    "But maybe a miracle will happen, I´ll meet a gorgeous divorced German woman that didn´t take any money from her ex because she has her own job and that doesn´t care about insurance policies and a BMW and offers to help out when ever she can. Meanwhile I´ll be waiting for Christ, Jimi Hendrix and Jim Morrison to fly down from heaven in a flying saucer filled with the 1978 Dallas Cowboy cheerleaders in string bikinis who give free beer and blow jobs to every guy in the world!"

    ReplyDelete
  36. I ask again, has Lisa Carver's claims of Stanton LaVey being a result of incest ever been proven?

    ReplyDelete
  37. I like your writing, and adherence to reason. This subject should be sussed out more. I've seen people in my life get really taken in by all these "Neo-Folks"/Volkisch-types and literally become Nazified. Slowly but surely. Common Trait: They do not like when Reason is invoked...

    ReplyDelete
  38. Thanks for your blog, which seems to address some important points.

    However, if I may, can I say there is a lack of focus and solution here?

    Whilst you are surely right to critique these bands, aren't they very old fashoioned by now?Do they have any audience these days?

    I agree with your anti fascist prism -- but what are you proposing?

    ReplyDelete
  39. Kudos on the article! Also excellent (read HUMOROUS and not "pious and boring") responses to some of your would-be detractors. Keep it up.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Interesting discussion about Boyd Rice and Larry Wessel's 4hour long documentary about him on Dangerous Minds blog

    http://www.dangerousminds.net/comments/iconoclast_larry_wessels_new_boyd_rice_documentary/

    ReplyDelete
  41. Well, Bensusan, it's not an "interesting discussion" over at Dangerous Minds (there's a misnomer for a start!) — it's mostly a tedious lot of mewling by a bunch of pantywaists about how terrible/evil/pretentious/boring Boyd Rice is.
    Well, I was the first person in the UK to see Larry Wessel's documentary, and I can tell you that no-one of a nervous disposition should watch this film — it’s chilling, and director Wessel dutifully records the lot. Boyd Rice is seen HERDING truckloads of nervous Jews onto a train bound for “Disneyland” — but once they arrive, it turns out to be a candy-coloured concentration camp, run by a sadistic cop named Herr Sherman. The Jews disembark, only to be stripped by an army of gum-chewing bimbos with beehive hair-dos, and are then battered unconscious with rifle butts wielded by a Dietrich Cassidy. Then Boyd Rice appears — dressed in black leather Jodphurs and greatcoat — only to URINATE CONTEMPTUOUSLY on the masses of prostrate Jewish bodies. Then a Chinaman wonders by looking for “his girlfriend” and . . . I can’t even bring myself to reveal the rest, but it is sure to OFFEND everyone.
    I cannot recommend this film to any of the teary-eyed milquetoasts and passive-aggressives who habitually post snotty comments about a fellow who had an artistic flirtation with totalitarian aesthetics and philosophy 15-20 years ago. Sorry, I mean the wrong kind of totalitarian aesthetic, as no-one here could give a rat's ass about Stalin's murder of 60 million. Anyway, actually WATCHING Wessel’s documentary may be hazardous to the pink, gossamer-thin self-images of the dodgy dialectical dingbats who stamp their little feet about Boyd Rice. I would instead recommend that they claim Rice's work and the ICONOCLAST DVD is “too boring” to bother about, and attempt to save face that way.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Yeah, that's right, son. We are all 'pantywaists' and 'milquetoasts' (though I ask myself, who but a milquetoast would use such an expression?), who just can't stand the sheer ballsiness and the challenging nature of Boyd Rice's 'art' and the way it challenges consensus ideas of reality. hahahaha. Or something. I've never seen the film, and wouldn't waste my time doing so - reading his world-historically stupid book was punishment enough for me - but if there is any truth at all to your account of it, I'd say that it is pretty much par for the course for this idiot - attempting to be offensive, pretending ot have a point (Disneyland - how very fucking original), but just sounding desperate for attention, like many other alcoholic bores. So, he had an 'artistic flirtation with totalitarian aesthetics'... just as the fascists had an 'artistic' relationship with fascist aesthetics. Duh. And as for this supposed ignoring of Stalin's crimes - are you kidding? From the very beginning there were Trotskyists, left-communists, anarchists and many other Marxists and leftists fighting Stlain and dying for it. Boyd's heroes, of course, were quite happy to cut a deal with Stalin (the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, etc). As both Stalin and the fascists were counter-revolutionary scum, such a deal makes perfect sense - so stop whining about Stalin's victims, about whom you actually couldn't give a toss.

    ReplyDelete
  43. A bit more on your hypocritical cant about Stalin. Presumably, you'd have a problem if Rice started dressing as a Stalinist and celebrating Stalin's crimes and ideology? In that case it is clear that you support Boyd Rice using specifically fascist (not 'totalitarian') imagery, and that's because you see fascism as somehow acceptable in a way that Stalinism isn't. Ditto Rice himself. The difference between Stalin and Hitler is that Stalin was the product of a failed revolution, and had to pretend to be of the left, whereas Hitler was the leader of a successful counter-revolution in Germany. It's because of that difference that there were indeed some on the left who excused Stalin's crimes - but these were the very same people who supported his pact with Hitler. Let's face it, your hypocritical whining about Stalin's murders exists only to excuse fascist barbarism, and for no other reason at all.

    The only people I know who consistently oppose both fascist and Stalinist barbarism are the sort of anti-fascists who contribute to this blog. And it is among the fascists that you find the modern supporters of Stalinism (as in Russia today, or as with Yockley, who Dave Tibet has claimed as an influence). Ultimately, Stalinism and Fascism are not mortal enemies, but feuding cousins.

    ReplyDelete
  44. "Strelnikov", it's easy for you to sit there bathing your myopic eyes and sucking at your inhaler while attempting to work yourself up about Stalinist "barbarism" (is that how you whitewash genocide when it's done by the little chaps in the red hats and not the black hats?), the poor Jews (sniff!), the 'terrors' of 'fascism' and whatnot. But, let me remind you, oh valiant warrior, of something: You spend all your time managing a dumb website dedicated to smearing retired middle-aged industrial musicians and neo-folk bands.

    ReplyDelete
  45. D Kaye, don't you think that, even by right-wing nutjob standards, you are exceeding your quota of stupidity with comments like that? I spoke of "fascist and Stalinist barbarism", yet you accuse me of whitewashing the Stalinists by using the term. Presumably I'm whitewashing the fascists too by your estimation? Do you find that you break out into a sweat when trying to concentrate or pay attention for more than a few seconds at a time?

    And, I don't know if you noticed, but I don't actually spend much time running this site. For instance, today I have spent about as much time on this blog as you have - and if you hadn't commented you could even have saved me that minimal effort. Now, given that I think that this blog serves a useful purpose, while you think it is a complete waste of time - don't you reckon that makes you the clear winner in the race to be an impotent gobshite?

    Now that you've done us the favour of demonstrating for all to see the intellectual and moral quality of the sort of retards who defend Boyd Rice, feel free to go back to you pile of war comics, scaring children and old ladies with your 'challenging' views, and stewing in your own anti-Semitic juices.

    ReplyDelete
  46. I wonder how long it would take for Stalin to reappear after the revolution of the "anti-fascists who contribute to this blog"? A good few of them are already trying to emulate him when terrorising goth kids at gigs and festivals in Germany. The idea that your extremist lot would be in any way better than any other extremist lot is laughable.

    ReplyDelete
  47. @Anon: That's a brilliant point. By my calculation it would take about ten minutes. I hadn't thought of it before, but now I realise that Stalinism began by harassing the peasants, who - almost by definition - were folk music fans. Thanks for the tip. It's sure to change everything once everyone hears about your startlingly original idea that fascists and anti-fascists are as bad as one another. If only all these mean, fusty old people would go away and leave the poor old teenage Goths in peace! I mean, nothing as irrelevant as politics should interfere with your right to wear eye-liner and listen to miserable records.

    ReplyDelete
  48. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Red John Antifa13 Apr 2011 11:28:00

    I have just had the misfortune to see the following comment by Daniel Miller in The Wire [someone elses copy - I don't buy it - literally and otherwise..]
    "Z'ev! I never knew he did "Wipeout". But it makes total sense: Boyd Rice is a big mate of his, and surf records are right up their street"
    ['Surf Nazis Must Die', anyone?]
    then - Miller recalls how they met and bonded - ending with "...out of that I became a supporter and a defender. Not that I feel he needs defending" - [Invisible Jukebox, The Wire, May 2011] Boyd, as NON plays in May - supported by The Wire [magazine - not group] - at the Roundhouse, Chalk Farm - Miller needs to be told just how wrong he is. Besides Miller, Boyd has been friends with Wyatt Kaltenberg [look him up] - who, unlike Miller doesn't run an influential record label....

    ReplyDelete
  50. He Who Actually Knows Something14 Apr 2011 17:29:00

    Listen, you irredeemable fuckwad, let me tell you something — Boyd Rice is now middle-aged and lives in LA with his girlfriend who is a wealthy Jewish banker. And two cats. He's happy and he's watching Seinfeld re-runs. OK? OK?Just because you're not, why should we have to listen to your ridiculous drivel? Go and roll around in the old Trotskyite newspapers at Bookmarks, or whatever it is people like you get up to.

    ReplyDelete
  51. ... and he still makes his money selling dismal Nazi, racist tat; or did he withdraw all those crap records, videos and books while we weren't looking? I love you dismal liberals, wanting to look inside the soul of a person, too stupid to notice what that person does, says and represents.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Red John Antifa20 Apr 2011 11:50:00

    SO, He who actually is a star-struck fanboy who probably knows what boyd had for breakfast - have you ever met the man or have you just gone woozy and doe-eyed in his proximity on one-too-many occasions...

    hes married again, ehh? just hope this partner fares better than some of his previous ´beaus´- and did wyatt kaltenberg perform the same duties for boyd that boyd did for him? do YOU actually know what I´m talking about or is your wide area of knowledge of boyds activities restricted to the likes of `what katie did now?´was giddle present at the wedding haaaaaaaahhaaaaaaahhaaaaaa - sad little boy (and boyd)

    ReplyDelete
  53. Q: People on the internet say that you're a "wife beater" because of what Lisa Suckdog said in her book. How do you respond to that?

    Boyd Rice: Well firstly, I was never insane enough to marry Lisa, so she was never my wife. Secondly, her false charges against me of domestic violence were laughed out of court. All charges were dismissed, and that's a matter of public record. The truth of the matter is that Lisa Carver is a pathological liar, and nine tenths of her "auto-biographical" scribblings aren't strictly true, but a means for her to live out her fantasies. And she had this white trash fantasy about men who were brutes and used their girlfriends as punching bags. For better or worse, I was never that guy.

    The case was thrown out of court because there was not a single shred of physical evidence to back up her charge. Police routinely take polaroids of cuts, bruises, black eyes and so forth in such cases. But there was nothing to photograph with Lisa because nothing happened. Lisa's a liar, full stop.

    Q: Not to split hairs, but there is in fact a sentence or two towards the end of Lisa's book in which she claims you strangled her and pushed her face into the wall. She does say that.

    BR: On the day of my trial, I was offered about six plea bargains and turned them all down because I wanted this thing to go to trial. Lisa flew to Denver from the east coast just to testify at my trial. I was adamant about wanting it to go to trial, so after I refused the final plea bargain, the assistant D.A. called LIsa over and asked her to tell what she was going to say on the stand. So Lisa tells her that I was growling like a wild animal or someone demon-possessed and that I lifted her off the ground by her neck, shook her around while strangling her, then smashed her face against a brick wall over and over and over, all while holding her in mid-air. Just as she thought she was going to lose consciousness from the severe pain, I tossed her across the room and she slammed down on the hard, concrete floor.

    The assistant D.A. dismissed Lisa then turned to her assistant and said "I can't put that woman on the stand. The jury would think she was insane and the judge would think I was insane." A few seconds later the assistant D.A. came over to me and informed me that I was free to leave, that they'd decided not to pursue the charges. She even apologized for "any inconvenience this may have caused me".

    The back story to this incident was that I told Lisa I was sick to death of her and couldn't stand living with her anymore. She protested that she still loved me, that she could change and things would improve if only we got married and had another child. I told her that wasn't going to happen. So she found an apartment nearby and was supposed to sign the lease the very next day after this so-called incident occurred. In truth, she'd always wanted to move back to New Hampshire to be near her loser father. This was the act of a bitter, vindictive woman. I rejected her so she wanted to destroy me and send me to prison. And it might have worked except she's not a good liar. I'm told that in recent years she did an interview in which she said she'd written that book to destroy my career. Wow, it's nice to know that even pathological liars can be honest on occasion.

    Over the years people have asked me why I didn't respond to her accusations against me. The simple reason is that I don't care and neither does anyone else. And too, no one has ever asked about Lisa in an interview. In fifteen years, not a single person has asked about Lisa until you did, so far as I recall. So you asked, and I'm telling you. I invite anyone who thinks I'm not telling the truth to go down to the court building and check the records.

    http://blog.wfmu.org/freeform/2011/05/a-conversation-with-boyd-rice.html

    ReplyDelete
  54. Never judge a artists work by what motivates that work. Take what you need and disregard the rest. If you have a mind then do that or else you will forever be at war with viral words and meanings.
    I will buy his movie when it becomes available.

    ReplyDelete
  55. Obviously 'Datacide' has nothing to do with with Datacide Magazine or Christoph Fringelli - who would never say anything that silly or banal.

    ReplyDelete
  56. Just Another Comment13 Jun 2011 04:32:00

    Well, the excerpt from the Rice interview hardly closes the matter. Obviously there was enough to the event for it to get that far. You don't get offered six pea bargains if there is absolutely no case against you.

    Carver is a liar? Well, maybe she is, maybe she isn't. But Rice? The guy takes Savitri Devi and Julius Evola seriously, for god's sake. That alone makes him sketchy enough that anything he says should be looked upon with skepticism.

    All his talk of 'abraxas' and his ideas of 'nature' strike me as nothing more than superstitious nonsense.

    ReplyDelete
  57. Just Another Comment13 Jun 2011 04:45:00

    Also...

    The topic of nazi satanism is brought up now and then on this blog. I thought you guys might find these two articles of interest. Both are written by neopagan author Isaac Bonewits, and are critical of Howard Levey's poor-mans-scientology that is the "church" of satan.


    The first details Bonewits' encounter with the church in the 60's.

    http://www.neopagan.net/SatanicAdventure.html



    The second concerns whether satanists should be welcome at neopagan events. Most of that material is not entirely related to the matters covered here, but his analysis of the various types of 'satanists' is intriguing, and does touch on their infantile right wing mindset.

    http://www.neopagan.net/Enemies.html

    Bonewits quickly came to the same conclusions that the author of this post has; Levey's silly little scam is nothing more than a bunch of nonsense that appeals to right wingers, racists, and wannabe nazis.

    ReplyDelete
  58. Crikey I'm just ploughing through clips of him on you tube. Here is overwhelming evidence on him supporting Nazism http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6zkunTr6Yog&NR=1

    ReplyDelete
  59. So if I illegally download Boyds music and enjoy it, like I would any musicians these days (and I do have my own ass backwards reasoning for why that is acceptable to do, unless I don't feel like explaining in which case it's because 'I don't give a fuck'), should I feel bad? Honest to god I don't think he's in it for the money anyways, do you. Making noise isn't a profitable venture. I think it might be all he can do, the poor bastard.
    Well, perhaps he is an ugly person but I see no denial of it. Perhaps his lack of respect for culture stems from a lack of respect for himself, having come from a culture himself and recognizing atleast that much, in which case putting this material into circulation is practically an invitation to denounce his comically mad ramblings. And that accomplishes practically nothing as you reaffirm only what he's said about himself, except for the admittance of idiocy (and I wouldn't be surprised if that's in there, I haven't read the book). Truthfully maybe having this blog, or the strength of your assertion itself, will make a difference. Good. Good enough. You do what you can do, it's all that can be done. Still I intend to listen to NON, so please don't hold it against me personally or any other person out there, and if we treat it the way Boyd treats girl groups, just because girl groups don't have a message behind them and Neofolk might doesn't mean the message is heard. People - the majority - don't deny Boyds Nazism to defend him, they do it to defend themselves when they worry about having a label put on them for the media that they enjoy. And if nothing else, I have to say this book sounds like an interesting character study. Look how much you personally we able to draw from it. In your mind you see the entirety of Boyd's confused logic, his mania and delusions. Enough that a now informed blog post can draw an audience vicariously through a simple commentary. It's pretty interesting.

    ReplyDelete
  60. Boyd received most of his exposure and money from negative publicity- appearances on trash TV talk shows and right-wing Christian radio rather than his actual merits as an artist. Considering he's all but forgotten since the 1990s, it seems whoever is posting this boogeyman article about him is falling into the same trap of keeping his name out there while claiming they want to fight and silence him (the latter is, even if you immensely dislike, utterly fascist in and of itself- no one should be censored or prevented from speaking or playing places where some people are happy to pay in addition to only further serving to solidify Rice's status as an iconoclast).

    I find Rice hilarious and amusing but that's mostly because of the reaction he stirs. On the one hand the writer points out how stupid and obscure this mid-aged "balding alcoholic" is yet the writer also seems to believe and hype up Rice as some sort of dangerous demagogue who is helping make fascism the rage (although I heard it's a bit "last fall" according to GQ). This irrational fear is hilarious because the people who introduced me and liked Rice at university are the same few people I have always met since that enjoy Rice- nerdy, mostly unemployed hermits who think they're smarter than everyone else and sit inside all day smoking pot, drinking and reading transgressive literature like de Sade because it makes them feel 'dangerous'. They're just like hippie students except they don't even bother occasionally staging some ineffectual protest because socio-political issues are much less interesting than watching gory horror movie marathons. The idea that these types would have anything in common or impress some backwoods, anti-intellectual KKK or neo-Nazi brutes with their underground vinyl records or geeky fixations on paganism and the occult is laughable. Let's worry about the banks and the financial institutions and our politicians that are more sinister and have far more power and impact than some fear the Nazis are coming back. Look at most KKK and neo-Nazi members (all, like, 300 of them scattered across shitkickers-ville) and tell me you think outside of the occasional crazed gunman, these guys could have any impact on our society.

    ReplyDelete
  61. I'm not sure if you read posts in this thread anymore, but I did want to stop by and discuss things with you. It was a very fascinating and engaging post, and I was hoping to maybe raise conversation and some points regarding your opinions on Boyd Rice and the role of racial/Nazi/Fascist ideologies. I know I'm not that intelligent, so do bare with me if you are reading this. While I'm no fan of Boyd Rice personally, I do feel the use of Fascist symbolism and ideology is certainly a valid use within the context of artistic expression for the purpose of altering perceptions.

    I'd like to open with your point on nature vs culture.

    "His trick here is to try to divide the human being schematically in two, one part (ideas and values) corresponding to culture, the other (instincts) corresponding to nature. Once again he makes absolute what is in reality only a relative distinction. Of course some human responses are more deeply wired into the physical, biological and genetic 'nature' of man than others, but certainly the 'instincts' that Boyd is covertly trying to justify (racism, misogyny, etc.) are in fact very much cultural products, as can be seen by anyone who spends any time at all considering their long development and the way that different societies have taken different attitudes towards them."

    I certainly agree with you there that creating a split line between "culture" and "nature" and claiming "culture" as worthless is a serious mistake on Rice's part. What I'm not so sure about is that the two are relative, though I don't think they are absolutes either. In my mind, culture is an expression of nature as its been synthesized with human wants and needs over time.

    For example, primitive religions that came about during the earliest formations of human society were predominantly nature oriented, and religions that dealt mostly with appeasement. Sacrifice was necessary to please the gods of storms or rain, etc. This was the beginning of early culture, the myths and deities that affected early human thought. But over time societies with more advanced structures evolved in their needs, and deities and religions followed suit. The process was of course transitional, with many patron city-state deities representing elements of nature. But there does seem to be a transitional progression from the primitive wants of security and stability (particularly in nature) towards new needs often reflected in religion and ethics. Consider the transition from Nordic mythology in Scandinavia and Germany towards Christianity. Christianity itself was an evolution from Judaism, which was a religion based primarily on the needs of tribal identity. The religious and ethical transition could best be visualized by a gradual social evolution from the lower rungs of Maslow's heirarchy gradually going upwards. If your agricultural food source is stable and your kingdom is based on raiding and bloody warfare what's more important, a deity of nature or a deity of absolute order? And if the transition is gradual enough, does the deity even have to change? Compare the Christianity of old, which you yourself pointed out was used as a smoke screen to justify the Crusades and the Inquisition, with Christianity now where many do promote a pro-peace and non-violent human equality belief structure while just as many promote the same sort of more primitive hate-all-outsiders sort of mentality. Is it that hard to imagine that the correlation is based on how close the individual is to self-actualization? What are the odds that those who feel a moral/religious justification for, say, the war in Iraq feel this way because in their minds a more primal need is being threatened (in this case, safety)?

    ReplyDelete
  62. The point I'm hoping I got across is that the natural is still omnipresent in our cultural foundations. Our needs are wired into us by nature. Again, perhaps I am misreading or misunderstanding your argumentation (and if I am feel free to hit me upside the head for it, haha) but I get the impression that you think many of the ideas espoused by proto-Fascists (such as racialism, etc) are byproducts of culture. Rather I'm arguing that that's not the case at all. Instead we have a series of needs all mandated by nature that can be *modified* but not changed or removed. If we again use Maslow's hierarchy as an example (though I have my fair share of reservations about it, it illustrates the point) every level of need already "exists" even if it hasn't been actualized. If they didn't previously exist then how would we transition to a higher stage once a lower stage is fulfilled? Instead the case is simply that the lower needs take our focus, and thus higher needs do not immediately register in the mind of the individual. Socialization doesn't create the need to belong, rather social organization came to be because that need existed in the first place. Otherwise mankind could have stayed as primitive hunter-gatherers and we wouldn't have invented such complex languages or the written word.

    Why is this valid? In many ways I agree with what Rice *could* be saying, or would be if he were more intelligent haha. Unfortunately the ideas he's trying to grasp are far beyond him. The needs of nature, from the perspective I drew earlier, are immutable from one perspective because they have always existed. The human mind, built on compartmentalization, focuses on particular needs at a time though it can be trained to look towards other needs. The idea of asceticism is just that, forgoing particular needs in favor of others (self-actualization, to keep in the spirit of our dear friend Maslow whose pyramid I'm currently butchering). But even the process of restructuring needs still falls under a basic, immutable progression. One must have had the lower needs met (by society, of course) before being properly introduced to the existence of other needs. It is then that individuals who have experienced these new needs can forgo the baser needs in favor of these higher ones they have been introduced to. If a child is raised without a social construct out in the wild and spends their life merely trying to get enough food to live by, does he/she stand much of a chance of ever knowing there are other needs besides food? Even the Buddha began life as a rich prince.

    Where does that leave the idea of the immutable will of nature? Here is where, again, I *almost* agree with Rice, though as you pointed out he is misusing the idea for the sake of gratifying his own ego. Simply put, nature is still the basis of human culture. But some cultures can twist this awareness in profoundly disturbing ways. Christian "asceticism" as its understood in the West, which denies enjoyment of sex or narcotics and other behaviors, is not focused on achieving self-actualization. In fact the real logical reasoning behind it is the appeal to a lower instinct of safety by way of punishment in the "afterlife." You don't drink or have sex because eternal suffering awaits, not because you want to focus on your place in the universe. Consumerism in the guise of "free market capitalism" gluts us with physiological needs, marketing and trends drag us down to social needs, the news scares us with fear-based needs that threaten our safety...these institutions as a whole base their existence on compartmentalizing awareness of our needs and drawing their whole focus on them for profit and power. Rather than raising the question "what do you need and why?" these structures create niche needs to fill and make sure consumers never turn away from the prize.

    ReplyDelete
  63. This is precisely why I feel Nazi imagery is such a valid tactic and strategy that warrants use in modern dialogue. Nazi imagery is powerful because

    A) It acts as an immediate threat to the lowest of needs. Earlier I mentioned that individuals can only focus on needs out of the basic order once they are aware of the existence of other needs (at least on an intellectual basis). With modern marketing and consumerist attitudes, marketing forces individuals to focus on individual parts at a time rather than the whole. The best way to grab attention from someone who is forced to focus on one need at a time by professionals? Hit their lowest need. Be a physical threat. Get in their face. Make sure their every thought is on you, because if they're afraid of you they aren't thinking about what's for dinner or what fancy new video game they want to buy. And when you don't hurt them or kill them or behave the way they expect, fear will lead them to ask why. Because they will want to know to understand you and make sure you won't be a threat in the near future.

    B) The racialist/homophobic tinge of the Nazi regime is a strong call back to the nature-dominated view from which awareness of needs originated. The characteristics targeted by the Nazis were ones which individuals had no control over. They were expressions of nature, like our human needs. Race is a product of one's parents, sexual orientation a faculty of the brain and its formation, birth defects an unfortunate genetic complication. It brings the focus back to basic needs and re-aligns thought processes with those of a nature-oriented viewpoint that starts to point consciousness in the direction of understanding people as products of nature. Historically mankind oriented its social structures based on "like," and one of the earliest indicators of like was, after all, the easily distinguishable race/culture. Skin color and language. The trick is to develop a deeper understanding of those reactions as a desire to fulfill certain needs (social acceptance). The benefit of using such iconography now is that we have the previous body of knowledge granted to us by older civilizations to quickly move past such limited understandings of our needs. In fact this is precisely why the use of Nazi imagery is such a powerful tool. Because our foundation is based on a rejection of superficial understandings of our needs (as superficial as, for example, like race = like person)to shatter it immediately and violently means we no longer take any notions for granted. In other words, if someone builds the foundation of their understanding of life on certain preconceived notions and something shatters their preconceived notions violently, will they be so quick to take the wisdom of others for granted? This is the value of racialist iconography in occultism as well (yes, I know I know, I just tried to defend the use of Nazi occultism, how cliche').

    C) Taking such a powerfully adversarial stance with violent iconography is not only a powerful tool to break established patterns of thought among others (in this case, breaking established patterns of thought in Western societies) but it also forces the individual taking an adversarial stance to confront themselves. It takes two to tango, as the old saying goes. So the meeting between two forces, one Adversarial and one of an established thesis, means the Adversary who is broadcasting their ideas can be expected to be challenged on every point which runs contrary to the established thesis put forth by the status quo. If the Adversary expects to survive (literally or figuratively) he or she must be able to adequately defend themselves. Either the Adversary successfully defends themselves, thereby proving the mettle of their ideals and their methods of broadcasting them, or the Adversary fails and must adapt or die (again, literally or figuratively).

    ReplyDelete
  64. Those are my two cents worth as one of those lunatic "neo-Nazi Satanic" types. I suppose I'd like to close by saying that regardless of your response I do hope you reconsider at least some of your opinions regarding the types of people that espouse these ideals. Yes, it's true that by the very Adversarial nature of what we do we tend to draw those who have poor socialization and/or reasoning and are eager to use these ideas to drive others away. Such was the case with the Church of Anton LeVay (which I hardly consider Satanic) and most of its adherents. Plenty need these ideologies to feed their badly bruised egos. But there are those of us out there who are *not* bigots or racists that espouse those tactics and do use them with particular purposes in mind. We are not eager to prove we are better than anyone because we don't believe we are. If you don't believe that, look no further than the 19th point in the Black Book of Satan.

    "19. Nothing is beautiful except man: but most beautiful of all is woman."

    We want to challenge others to think and break preconceived notions set forth by the people around us. And rest assured that if the Sinister Dialectic called for the use of Soviet iconography it too would be used.

    I hope you do read this, and if you do I eagerly await your response. Like I said, I'm not too bright but I thoroughly enjoyed your post. I like having my thoughts and beliefs challenged by intelligent people.

    ReplyDelete
  65. Racism and homophobia are not natural, as can be seen from the fact that many societies have no knowledge of them whatsoever. Racism has a distinct history and can be shown to be the product of historical factors. For instance, while xenophobia was common in classical society - so that those from a different culture were considered 'barbarian' - racism was not central to their culture - so that, eg., a black foreigner who shared the same culture would not necessarily meet discrimination. Most of the racism you or I meet was shaped in the first place by imperialism and, especially, the slave trade (which produces the pseudo-scientific racism of the Nazis but also of, eg., eugenicists). More recently the discourse of racism has been refashioned in response to the crisis of US & Western imperialism coming to grief in the middle east, and by changes to the world economy that encourage mass migration. The emphasis in racism these days is not the zoological naturalism of the Nazis, but is tinged with cultural chauvinism, in response to the changing nature of emigration, etc. In any case, history does not show racism to be a natural factor of human relations, but a variable factor based on politics. Boyd Rice, of course, bases his schtick on pseudo-scientific ideas that were thoroughly discredited almost a century ago.

    ReplyDelete
  66. Apologies, I didn't meant to imply that the extremes to which they are taken are natural. I see where I made my mistake.

    "Again, perhaps I am misreading or misunderstanding your argumentation (and if I am feel free to hit me upside the head for it, haha) but I get the impression that you think many of the ideas espoused by proto-Fascists (such as racialism, etc) are byproducts of culture."

    What I meant to say (and ultimately failed) is that how Fascists...let's call it "validate"... their conceptions of race are rooted in nature and those primal needs. It represents a lower gradient of social need wherein like seeks like. Of course socio-political forces, motivated largely by pseudoscience, twist perceptions by drawing distinction and "like" where they do not exist. However, at it's base it is fundamentally one of those basic needs expressed by the immutability of nature.

    In this regard, racism becomes a window to the primitive and basic need expression because it creates a confrontation that immediately draws attention to the journey of "like seeking like." While it is superficial, it does provide a certain degree of symbolic understanding because it is visually, and more importantly, nature-based. Racism is not a product of nature, but race is. Homophobia is not a product of nature, but homosexuality is. Both ideas are, by and large, overly simplistic. But when you're trying to break established social frameworks and challenge the conventional "wisdom" of the status quo, that simplistic view becomes a "spring board" of sorts upon which further meditation can begin. Why do we seek out like? What is the meaning/value of race? What is the difference between that and culture? Again, these are notions often taken for granted. What is important is drawing attention to those questions and the needs of humanity.

    I'm hoping that clarified a bit? I was very pleasantly surprised to see you take the time to respond to an out-of-the-blue post on a year-plus-old post. Thanks for taking the time out to respond to such a random inquiry, haha. The conversation, like your initial post, has been most enlightening. I look forward to reading your response!

    ReplyDelete
  67. " The concept of 'race' is pre-scientific and pseudo-scientific. It belongs to the pre-history of the biological sciences. For the past 30 or 40 years geneticists and anthropologists, when discussing the variations in human physical characteristics, have tended to avoid this concept. They have discarded it as 'artificial' and 'meaningless', 'obselete' and 'almost mystical', 'out-of-date, if not irrational', 'a particularly virulent term', 'a facet of the folklore of Western civilisation that is inadequate to account for the facts of human biological variation'. The American anthropologist Ashley Montagu, who sees the concept of 'race' as one of the greatest and most tragic errors of our time, has suggested that a word which has exercised such an evil tyranny over human minds should be 'permanently dethroned from the vocabulary'.

    (Peter Fryer)

    ReplyDelete
  68. I am very interested in the use of Reason and Discourse in such contexts. Reading this post, it pops into my head that Kafka's "Metamorphosis" may be that change of Reason and Intelligence into a rather unpleasant insect: it just happens suddenly one morning after a bit of peeping-tom into the lives of the bourgeoisie making sandwiches... and one is an insect for the rest of their days.

    Essays in the service of such philosophy reminds me of bits of feathers and persiflage adorning the bodies and speech of various "alpha rubes" in the settings of post-apocalyptic cinema..."Shape of Things to Come" and "Mad Max" come to mind.
    It is Logic as Totem.

    Wonderful.

    ReplyDelete
  69. Well written and interesting article. No one can say the man isn't funny.

    ReplyDelete
  70. pontificate, masturbate, philosophize all you want. I'm surprised people don't turn up to Boyd Rice gigs wearing WINSTON CHURCHILL or MOSSAD t-shirts.

    I'd love to see the reaction to that!!

    ReplyDelete
  71. >>>The way this works is that Rice can openly declaim and publish Fascist and racist ideas, and yet confused fans and commentators - who have bought into the mistaken idea that provocation in and of itself is the ne plus ultra of artistic radicalism - still refuse to accept that by buying his records and attending his gigs they are financing a Fascist propagandist since, after all, he is 'merely' trying to provoke.

    I don't think Rice is "merely" trying to provoke. I think he has many other things on his mind, including a fascination with unusual sounds and album structure, among many other things. That being said, I think, unlike you, that provocation IS a very worthy goal in art, even for its own sake, if only because it is unconventional and the unconventional is to be praised, especially in ultra-conformist times.

    I also think it's a bit absurd to suggest you are supporting fascism by supporting Rice. No, you are not supporting fascism. You are supporting an impoverished artist living in a basement apartment who has a tiny audience and more influence than name recognition.

    ReplyDelete
  72. You make an OK argument for him being abit fascistic i his ideas but you provide no evidence for him being a racist. Also wasn't Lisa Suckdog with GG Allin at one point? Can you really trust what she says?

    ReplyDelete
  73. It's fair to say his "philosophy" is fascistic but you cannot really say it's racist or white supremacist. But can you really not see how firmly his tongue rests in his cheek in all of his writing and music. I like Boyd Rice and went to see him the other night but i like him in the same way i like the band Anal Cunt, his whole persona seems to be abit of a joke and an article dissecting his beliefs like this does seem a little pointless. He did appear on race and reason and have his photo taken with Bob Heick but he has also worked with Steve Ignorant from Crass. You seem to be taking it all far to seriously.

    ReplyDelete
  74. I read the original article and subsequent comments and found the former and over half of the latter to be pure rubbish. First off, I want to introduce myself as a left-wing Socialist in the truest sense of the word (look it up, don't believe Rupert Murdock's definition). Secondly, I have followed Boyd Rice's musical works through his records and CDs, beginning in the late 70s up to his latest release, Back To Mono. He was revelatory in the early days and can still make a great noise when he makes the effort to do so. Due to my left-wing politics, I never found his social Darwinism period anything I could embrace. I also thought the purity of harsh noise was diluted by his associations with the neofolk. That said, as an artform, I still enjoyed those albums. Boyd Rice is an artist, and one that apparently can still stir considerable controversy (and a successful one considering the author of the article went to all the trouble of writing such a lengthy piece). Whether or not he is a nice guy is irrelevant. I can't help but wonder why anyone would spend so much time assembling these attacks (based on hearsay). What's your stake in it? How do you benefit? Other than yourself, who else might benefit from reading it? It reminds me of the religious nuts who flail about when a crucifix is submerged in urine and it is displayed in an art museum. So much outrage over nothing. The definition of art has expanded in recent years and what Boyd Rice does IS art. Nice you got it off your chest, Strelnikov, but when we're all dead years hence, who will give a rat's ass? There may be some future musical history book which may have a paragraph about Boyd Rice, but I'm sure your critique will not even garner an asterisk.

    ReplyDelete
  75. "Boyd Rice is an artist... what Boyd Rice does IS art"

    well, you know, I bought those early records too, and was into industrial music, and one of the things I learned from that era is that ART is corny, and anyone who is impressed by ART and ARTISTS is stuck in the 19th Century. As I recall, in the early days Rice posed as a Dadaist - yet his fans don't notice that Dadaism was not ART but ANTI-ART. So its quite funny hearing fans fawn over noise as ART.

    Another thing you are rather forgetting is that, although we were a bit young to notice it at the time, Rice's whole schtick only really works for teenagers who want to get all excited about 'radical art' and 'controversy' without noticing that it actually matters *what* you are causing controversy about. Causing controversy for its own sake is what teenagers do. And if you want to court controversy by helping promote skinhead racist organisations, then don't be surprised if anti-fascists pay you some attention - standing off to one side pretending that, as a consumer of 'ART', you are above the fray of politics, is incredibly lame. It's as if the great anti-art movements hadn't happened at all.

    ReplyDelete
  76. Anti-art is an artistic critique of art (much like noise is to music), so perhaps you should go back and look into it a bit more. While I'm not going to bother getting into a debate (which is really just a silly argument about whether Boyd Rice is 'good' and whether you should like him or not), I will say that he is a great entertainer or else this page and thread wouldn't exist and that is exactly why he has been so successful over the years. In other words, you're only bringing more attention to him which is probably the opposite of what someone like you should want to do considering you are against your misinterpretation of what his message is.

    ReplyDelete
  77. "...anyone who is impressed by ART and ARTISTS is stuck in the 19th Century."
    Are you being serious with this comment? There has been no art or artists since then? While most of the sound artists I currently listen to are from Sweden, simply stated, Boyd Rice has mastered the art of the noise loop no matter when he did it. And what's with all of the labels? Dadaism, art, anti-art, fascists, anti-fascists? Is music simply an exercise in politics and semantics for you?

    "...Rice's whole schtick only really works for teenagers..."
    Um, I am 60-years-old. My 56-year-old, left-wing, feminist wife also enjoys listening to NON. When church groups get their panties in a knot over excrement being used with religious images, it is the evangelicals who are actually causing the controversy, not the artist. Perhaps some of my fellow Boyd Rice listeners may be populated with skinhead types. That said, it is people like you (and the skinheads) who project their own controversy onto Rice's music. Fortunately for me, and as an artist myself, I can indeed can stand to the side and simply consume the art for its own sake.

    Why do you censor your ability to hear music with labels and politics?
    Why do you care so much?
    What are you trying to achieve?

    ReplyDelete
  78. But I *do* want to draw attention to him. Specifically I want to draw attention to the fact that he uses countercultural poses to help justify Social Darwinism, racism, etc. I don't believe in the idea that if you ignore bad things they will go away of their own accord. You say you are of the left - do you think that if you ignore governments, political parties, and capitalism itself they will all go away? Do you argue that they must all be good because they are popular? If not, why make an exception for Boyd Rice?

    "Anti-art is an artistic critique of art (much like noise is to music),"

    I dispute this. Anti-art is a non-artistic response to art, a political response to art, or an attempt to put art into some other context than that of religion (where artists are possessed by genius, etc., etc).

    ReplyDelete
  79. This reply is from the Anonymous writer of 19 December (whose second comment you chose to ignore, or to give you the benefit of the doubt, perhaps you were confused since I didn't select a profile for myself):

    "Anti-art is a non-artistic response to art, a political response to art, or an attempt to put art into some other context than that of religion..."

    Although the above quoted comment was meant for the Anonymous dated 20 December, I cannot help but remark upon it as it sums your position rather well, Strelnikov. You ARE religious about this. You are on a mission to impose your political beliefs onto art, just like the evangelicals do when they disapprove of religious imagery displayed with animal feces in museums. You want to censor art because it does not agree with your beliefs/politics. If all art were judged by your standards, there would be no art at all, only sanitized milk which passes your narrow standards. Making matters worse, you establish yourself as the expert on what is art and what isn't and base all of your conclusions on your so-called expertise. I cannot see much difference between your statements on art than those of the evangelicals, or even worse, those held by the Nazis when they categorized art they didn't approve of as "degenerate" kunst. How are you any different?

    Perhaps this comment was meant for me: "You say you are of the left - do you think that if you ignore governments, political parties, and capitalism itself they will all go away?"

    What the hell do governments, polical parties and Capitalism have to do with art? Boyd Rice is not running for any office, and if he were, I wouldn't vote for him. I will still buy his records though because he is an artist (and not a politician).

    I don't give a rat's ass whether or not Boyd Rice or any of the sound artists I listen to are popular or not. I don't watch American Idol. Assuming you are left-leaning, why don't you write a blog about some right-wing asshole who actually sells records (like Ted Nugent)? Why do you target someone like Boyd Rice, who according to you, is irrelevant anyway?

    If you publish this comment, I must ask again:
    What are you trying to achieve?

    ReplyDelete
  80. I really hate Ted Nugent. Generic guitar playing meets idiotic political views. Not a good combination.

    I choose not to listen to Boyd Rice anymore because I couldn't reconcile myself with some of his reactionary views. I wound up reselling all his recordings, even the early ones like Pagan Musak and the Black Album. Him stooping to party-line Islamophobia was the last straw for me. It made him no longer interesting. Besides which I found out he ripped off alot of stuff including the Dark Shadows album and now he's ripping off Phil Spector as well, so I'm wondering if he's really an original 'artist' at all.

    However I wouldn't stop anyone from buying music by Rice or Nugent or Kiss for that matter. (I think I also decided Gene Simmons is a right-wing jerk-off...) Let the audience decide for themselves.

    ReplyDelete
  81. I guess that we just see Boyd Rice differently because if anything I think that he has used Social Darwinist, racist, etc.. postures in the past to help draw attention to himself and his music/noise which I would still consider art and I would elaborate on that further, but I think that the other Anonymous guy has already covered that part for me. As far as comparing him to a government, political party, or capitalism - I just think that is ridiculous and you're giving him way too much credit. I don't actually consider Boyd Rice that popular and think his influence on art and noise music has been greatly under-rated in a historical context, if anything. I think the fact that you don't even seem to understand the concept of anti-art or dadaism very well speaks volumes about your inability to understand much less appreciate him as an artist.

    ReplyDelete
  82. "What are you trying to achieve?"

    We are trying to examine the grey area in which teenage extremism ("look at me, ma, I'm a Nazi!") a la Sid Vicious or Joy Division, blends over into fascist propagandising. I have always found it remarkable that people refuse to believe that a scene which endorses the use of fascist imagery might not be a convenient place for fascists to hang out in order to spread their ideas and organisation. Certainly a number of overtly fascist organisation, from the NF onwards, have made that connection and have attempted to use these milieus as recruiting grounds.

    I have no problem with modernism. It is a bit ridiculous of one commentator here to say that the logic of this blog is to oppose modernism, as what is being opposed here is simply fascist use of art and music. This position no more implies opposition to modernism than the Surrealists opposition to fascism implies that they were really conservatives at heart.

    In short, all those who plunder the iconography of Dada and Surrealism without connecting it to political radicalism are basically marketing men, stealing and recycling an image without comprehending it's meaning.

    I have no problem with people listening to Boyd's noise - I think it is artistically pretty corny and backward looking, but others clearly disagree - what I object to is the way the music is used as a focal point for legitimating Social Darwinist, racist and fascist ideas.

    The reason I don't write about Ted Nugent is, forst of all, that there are plenty of people who will right about the NRA/Tea Party affiliations of people like Nugent or Mo Tucker. What has been missing for a long time is any sensible discussion of, eg., Industrial Music, Neo-Folk, etc - the kinds of music discussed here. I believe the reason for that is precisely because it is a difficult area. I mean, what Ted Nugent believes is right-wing BS, but he speaks up for it openly, so it is possible for him to be treated politically exactly as if he were a journalist, writer, hod carrier or any other profession. With the music we discuss here, though, the use of ambivalence, deniability, disinformation, indirection, etc., is party of the game, so it is much more difficult to say what any particular artist represents.

    hth

    ReplyDelete
  83. 19 December Anonymous responds:
    Strelnikov, I cannot help but think you have a very high opinion of yourself. You make countless assumptions. For example your commentary about the so-called indoctrination of teenages into fascism via his music. I've written I am 60-years-old artist and am a left-wing political activist (like Bill Ayres, a former member of the Weather Underground, and most recently, a major participant in the Occupy movement in my home city), and while I mainly listen to Swedish noise artists, I find Boyd Rice's mastery of noise loops to be unparalleled. My 56-year-old feminist wife agrees. Her favorite Boyd Rice album is Hatesville. Why doesn't your theory about NON's music fit us? Why? Because it's wrong. And if you are so wrong about us, might you concede it's a stretch to call NON's music nothing more than a tool to indoctrinate teenagers? Besides, how many even listen to someone as obscure as Boyd Rice? One of the reasons many of his collector edition releases are limited to 1,000 is because that's how many copies will sell worldwide; hardly a threat to world peace even if you are right.

    I've asked you time and again to state what your motivation is for writing these rants against Boyd Rice and have yet to receive an answer. If it is to turn people away from his music, I doubt you are succeeding. You know how tempting forbidden fruit is, don't you? Recruiting? Seriously? Do you have any proof that the ranks of the American Nazi Party has swelled based on teenagers listening to NON? If not, how can you make such statements? You're just pulling "facts" like these out of an orifice.

    What originally prompted me to write to begin with was you setting yourself up as an authority on modern music with all of the labels you use. Who made you the authority? Do you have a modern music degree? Are you an artist yourself? Again, you strike me as just another misguided evangelist, no different than those who take issue with modern visual art in museums or whine about the so-called war on Christmas. In other words, someone trying to impose their morality onto art. Again, I do not see what separates you from the Nazis who censored entartete kunst (degenerate art). For someone who obviously detests Nazis as much as you do, why do you use their tactics?

    ReplyDelete
  84. Hi

    I don't set myself as an authority, I simply have opinions and I present and defend them. Others here are keener on Rice's music. I think it absurd of you to compare what we do here - argue against fascism, fascist aesthetics, etc - to fascism, or 'fascist tactics', while making out Rice - who has been known to openly endorse fascism - to be suffering terrible persecution for his art. Ultimately I think your position is historically ignorant inasmuch as you seem to think of fascism as consisting essentially of being judgemental or disapproving, whereas you treat the essence of artistic radicalism to consist merely in being provocative or controversial. Actually, all the guff about being controversial is completely acceptable to the big money art investors, who recognise in this years' controversial artist, next years profits. I've said before that I rather liked Rice's early noise loops at the time, and I liked Rise, but that was a long time ago, and these days, as I have also said, I hear in nothing much more than a kind of Goth minimalism. Again, we might just disagree about that, but to pretend that it is fascistic to fight for a political-aesthetic position, while it is somehow ennobling, and interesting to talk right-wing crap under the banner of 'art', sounds unserious to the point of being silly. In saying that, I am not setting myself up as better, or better qualified than you; I am simply telling you how what you are saying sounds to these ears.

    ReplyDelete
  85. 19 December says:

    When did I say Rice is "suffering terrible persecution for his art"? When did I even imply it? I'm sure he's aware of this and other anti-NON sites and my guess is he doesn't care.

    Your analysis of my definition of fascism is 100% off-base. Fascism is not music, it is political; however, when political ends are used to define art, it is an attempt to censor. The Nazis did it, and your writings do it as well, albeit from opposite ends of the political spectrum. Read the last two sentences again carefully. Let me repeat the key portion: "...when political ends are used to define art, it is an attempt to censor" which is not calling your (or anyone's) demands for censorship fascistic, but rather, giving examples of diverse groups who use and confuse politics with art.

    Of course, you have a right to your opinions, but you do not write music reviews; you write in a documentarian style, as if what you say is fact-supported correct, the end, amen. Over 50% of what you say is suppositions and assumptions. Using Lisa Suckdog as an unimpeachable source to support your position is beyond weak.

    And I also think you are targeting a group of musicians who have small followings and little influence. The type of teenager you want to "save" from them are already predisposed to listen and accept. It's as if you are trying to save the rural southerners in the United States from hearing the far right-wing Tea Party message. I appreciate art for what it is without having to filter it through my liberal politics.

    Strelnikov, I am guessing our politics are probably similar outside of this issue. I still cannot help but wonder why you feel the need to vilify an obscure artist as if he had/has any real impact. Your writings do not simply attack Boyd Rice as "nothing much more than a kind of Goth minimalism" (which would be fine), but rather, as a fascist hell-bent of influencing teenagers and a danger to society (which is self-righteous political nonsense). That's just what the evangelicals claim when they see art they deem as heretical. And that's my problem with what you say. You want to censor art based on your politics.

    By the way, I had to laugh when you put "big money art investors" into your statement. Really? Boyd Rice (and the rest of the neofolks) attract big money investors, do they?

    ReplyDelete
  86. Obviously Rice has not attracted big money from art speculators, etc. my point is only that controversy of the type Rice plays with is acceptable in the official art world (remember the picture of Myra Hindley made of children's hand prints? ).

    I think your argument rests on the clean separation you want to make between aesthetics and politics. This is the basis of many people's defence ("I'm interested in fascist aesthetics, not fascist politics"). I believe this argument is fundamentally mistaken in that, eg., it ignores the extent to which fascism runs the aesthetic and the political together. Indeed, I support Walter Benjamin's argument that fascism has aestheticised politics, and the best response to that would be to politicise aesthetics - ie. to try to demonstrate the political content and meaning of different aesthetics.

    I did not treat Lisa Suckdog as an 'unimpeachable source', but merely as a source, as evidence.

    Happy holidays to you and yours

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Somehow I cannot see how this... http://boydrice.tumblr.com/post/30485890689/karin-buchbinder-tiki ...can possibly be interpretted as a threat to society. Boyd Rice married this woman today AND this is verfiably the very first time he tied the knot in spite of nonsensical claims stating he already did so with Lisa Suckdog.

      '...merely as a source...' huh? Why quote drug-addicted liars like Suckdog to begin with (unless it's what you want to hear)? Facts don't matter, eh? Watching too much Karl Rove and FauxNews lately? Is that where you got the idea to make up your own reality? If you can't keep your facts straight or worse still, base your remarks on hearsay, you should not bend over backwards (via this blog) to mislead people just to make your point.

      Oh yeah and FYI... the Boyd and Karin's wedding was attended my numerous Jews, gays (members and friends of Hirsute Pursuit) and even a couple of blacks (members and friends of N-Noiz). Nazi, huh? Hmmm.

      One more point of interest (although I know it will fall on deaf ears): Boyd Rice has also made the following statement on his Facebook page (dated 4 February 2013): 'as of late last night I severed all personal & professional contact with douglas pearce'.

      After reading your blog and subsequent comments, I can't help but think the truth won't matter to you. You're on a mission (as is Roger Ayles of FoxNoise), and you'll continue to bash him for no reason other than you're too proud of this blog to amend it in accordance to the facts and reality.

      Delete
  87. having grown up lurking 4chan and learning first hand the difference between 'critical thinking' and 'edgy criticism', i've always thought that boyd rice sounded a lot like one of those 16-year-old neckbeards who go around looking for reassurance on stormfront and hiding behind the 'anon is legion lol' facade. his music is only somewhat interesting and he's most certainly the sort of person i'd add to my 'lovable crazies who i'd listen only because no one else buys into this shit' list, though.
    the only thing you should mention when you go again on a tirade about the evils of death in june and boyd rice is that they themselves are just harmless white momma's boys, as are most of their fans. these self-proclaimed white supremacists are the kind to cross the street when they see an african american in baggy clothes. all talk no balls.
    but yeah great article.

    ReplyDelete
  88. Hmmm. I sent you a link and more importantly, proved Boyd is not really a racist/bigot (based in part on the guest list for his wedding: populated mainly with gays, blacks and Jews) and you choose not to post it because it would effectively discredit your rant. To quote you: "all talk no balls."

    ReplyDelete
  89. Inflatable Sex Babies1 May 2013 01:27:00

    I think it's fitting that one of Rice's symbols includes the Ourobouros: a snake sucking its own cock.

    ReplyDelete
  90. The worst thing about Boyd Rice isn't that he's a pseudo-crypto-nazi-wannabe-arty-farty-fun-guy. It's that he and his fellow travelers in the neo-folk/volkische circles make the underground scene as much of a vapid wasteland of ironic nihilism as the über-culture.

    It wouldn't surprise me if Rice and co. are funded by the CIA, the same way that Abstract Expressionism was - as an epic troll to gross out and demoralize any idealistic counter-culture seekers expecting to find any real substance in the ideas of the radical fringe.

    ReplyDelete
  91. "It wouldn't surprise me if Rice and co. are funded by the CIA, the same way that Abstract Expressionism was - as an epic troll to gross out and demoralize any idealistic counter-culture seekers expecting to find any real substance in the ideas of the radical fringe."

    that's an interesting idea…

    ReplyDelete
  92. Great site. As a grandson of Holocaust survivors we need to weed them out...thankfully rice is seemingly a 90s phenomenoah but what we must do now is get rid of the "anti-zionist" which really means "anti-semite" from our scenes. Keep up the good work smashing these fascist scum.

    ReplyDelete
  93. Some comments from an interview on Rice's site (Copyright Boyd Rice 2011), original published in Fifth Path:

    "I became more and more curious, and more and more intrigued. I loved the name Death In June, and of course had an affinity with the imagery and symbols."

    "I played Gen. an early NON concert tape and he played me an early T.G. tape. We both agreed that there were some amazing similarities not only in the musical (if you can call it that) direction we were exploring, but also on a personal level- a lot of shared interests. I had no idea what T.G. was when I went around to look up Gen., all I knew is that he was an artist who was very into Manson and Hitler. Back then, NO ONE was into that sort of thing. Now it’s just a trendy youth culture fad, but back then if anyone bothered to pursue such things you could pretty much guess it came from a sincere interest, and further that the interest could only have been born of a seriously divergent world view. In those days Gen still wore swastikas and would tell anyone who would listen (and many that wouldn’t) what a great guy Hitler was. Uncle Adolf he called him."

    ReplyDelete
  94. oooh anon of 4th march - "One more point of interest (although I know it will fall on deaf ears): Boyd Rice has also made the following statement on his Facebook page (dated 4 February 2013): 'as of late last night I severed all personal & professional contact with douglas pearce'."
    do please tell, what has occurred?

    ReplyDelete
  95. Jonty Bloomingdales19 Jul 2013 11:59:00

    God! I need a bath! I just visited Boyd Rice facebook to look at the fourth of february '13 - what a load of old shit! what a load of wanky people positively bowing at the feet of this stupid old has-been - I quite like the fans who have a go at him for deserting Douglas - "in a very oh we still love each other but i just couldn't stand the abuse [sob!]" it took him long enough!! and as was pointed out - Douglas already did the deed years ago - this is like a delayed action "you are fired!" "you can't fire me me - i resign!" that took ages for the after-the-firing response. How thoroughly pathetic! and talking of that - Genesis P. Athetic is all over the pages like a rash! have a go at him on here - he has got away with too much for too long!

    ReplyDelete
  96. Amy Semples' Lunchtime Fancies20 Jul 2013 00:17:00

    HO, Ho! so amused was I by the above that thought I would take a look at that facebook. I know realise the arrangement - basically it seems that the Diva Douglas Pearce had Boyd as his bitch, and Albin before him, Albin in fact also appears to deliver a forgetable catty one-liner - you get the feeling that there has been a lot of late night long distance drunken telephone going on between these two jilted Johnnies. Finally, yes, the barely amoebic fans meanwhile just wish they could be the meat in any sandwich that the Three Men in a Sinking Das Boot could serve up - provided their heroes shit was used for garnish. What a Total-War waste of energy they all are....

    ReplyDelete

Please at least use a pseudonym so it's possible to follow your argument if you make multiple posts